Recent comments

Well there goes the best part of this site. That's very sad, but you leave on a high note really. Expressing your opinions thoroughly, clearly, and persuasively.

Thanks for your consistently interesting columns. I saw this site transition from writing about these subjects freely, to writing about these subjects in a separate bubble, in the JPGamer column, to now cutting that out altogether. I think it's clear this site is on a downward trajectory.

@pbrand I completely, 100% agree with your post. Most people simply do not have the stamina to get to the truth of this though, especially the press. To them, it's already a demanding story to cover XIV, and it's rebirth in ARR. They can't find any more nuance than that, because it's too demanding on their readers. The story is that ARR is better, so they will stick with that.

Anyone who played XI knows that XI is better than WoW though, and ARR is basically a WoW clone. The actual truth is that XIV 1.0 was better than ARR right before they took it offline. After they worked on it for a year, and patched it, and fixed it, it was better. If they made it like XI, but with a better engine, and new content, it would be far better than ARR is now.

The narrative in the press that Yoshi P is amazing is also wrong, but few will see that now, because the story is so tempting to follow in its simplistic form. In reality, he had a cowardly vision for game design; copy WoW. He's a great pragmatist, and great at managing a team with hundreds of people on a deadline. But nothing about what he's done is great creatively. Even his comments in this story are kind of distressing. He's basically saying that his vision was to copy other FF games and just fill this with fan service. If you put up the quotes from Toriyama and Yoshi P in this article and removed the names, I bet 9 out of 10 people would think that Yoshi's came from Toriyama, and vice versa, but that is not the case.Edited 2 times. Last edited May 2014 by Unknown

I think you exaggerate the significance of Bravely Default quite a bit. It sold something like 200k combined physical and digital in the US if I'm not mistaken. That's nowhere near enough sales to even be considered as a factor in deciding where to take the future of FF. Kingdom Hearts 3D sold somewhere in that range, and they viewed it as a disappointment.

Bravely Default was purchased by a small niche. If they decide to cater to that niche, it will be with small products. SQEX typically has shown that they aren't very interested in doing that though.

SQEX is instead eyeing the sales of Dark Souls, The Witcher, Mass Effect, Skyrim, Dragon Age, and on. It really would be suicide to go back to turn based for a mainline FF game. Their 10 million sales for FFVII, the series' high in sales, directly translates to the 10 million sales Skyrim got. That's their audience, not Bravely Default.

I really enjoyed Toriyama's quotes in this article. He came across sounding the most intelligent and interesting of the bunch. Yoshida, not so much.

Something else that I think is a missing piece of this puzzle is Eidos. The article wonders aloud if SQEX can compete with Naughty Dog graphically, and I think that even if we ignore XV, all you have to see is Tomb Raider to know that they absolutely can. Agni's Philosophy was also noteworthy in that it had a handful of Crystal Dynamics artists working on the project along with Visual Works studio in Japan. I think that rather than Kitase asking forums for feedback on what works in the west, they'll also be able to work internally with Eidos to get western feedback before the game is even shown outside the company. They also said they're prioritizing PC development, and considering releasing their games on PC. Even if the console crowd is growing disinterested, the PC crowd is hungry for these games and I think we'll start to see that play a role.Edited May 2014 by Unknown

@jeremy.parish Well, I tried to be respectful while still explaining where I was coming from.

"I really hope they cut the Family Scene before Lords of Shadow 2 launches next month."

Considering that marketing was already pressuring Cox to cut the scene, and considering that the introduction to the article is him explaining that only now, after the first game is a success does he feel his team has the leeway to create the content without filtering it - I think it's fair to say the game is already vulnerable to pressure to dilute the game. Since we know that is the case, and we know how these exact kinds of issues tend to spread the controversy around like wildfire - writing an article specifically asking them to cut it doesn't really help things, if your goal is to see the team put out their vision for Dracula.

I've never seen similar criticism in film, and I just thought that was worth pointing out. I don't think it's a constructive way to go for a preview piece.

"Yes, Lords of Shadow 2 Made Me Feel Uncomfortable: The Case For Censorship"

I think it's really sad to specifically hear Cox talking about how they feel more confident as a team, and how that confidence is letting them go for their creative vision for the game without compromise. And then right after that, someone asks them to cut it.

"When Cox talks about wanting to take risks and arguments with the marketing team, it's clear that the scene was constructed with the intention of evoking sexual assault."

Why is it clear? I'm at a disadvantage here, not having played through that scene yet. But it sounds like murder to me, not rape. And as you said, all vampire movies since Interview with the Vampire basically blur the lines between eroticism and violence, and that's a series from a female author. If you want to categorize every single vampire attack in Interview with the Vampire as rape, you probably could if you wanted to twist it into that. Hell, in that movie they turn a child into a vampire, and then eventually Louis has a romantic relationship with her.

I don't remember any professional film critics writing to the director, pleading with them to delete content from the movie; and that movie came out 20 years ago, in 1994. I know that as an internet blogger, it's very easy to dismiss any critical commenters. But seriously, think about it. How sad would it be if professional film critics wrote articles appealing for censorship?

"Second, you're not meant to sympathize with the victim -- a young woman who doesn't even rate a name or a personality. You are meant to sympathize with Dracula."

It sounds like the same theme as the first game, where Gabriel murdered his wife and Claudia (I think that's her name) and then his guilt tormented him and twisted him. The game is about him, this isn't a secret. And that scene shows that he's gone down the same road as the first game, but is infinitely worse. I don't think we're meant to know who she is in Lords of Shadow 2, because he feeds on so many people over the years that you could never really detail all the victims. They are his food. Humans don't get into the backstory of all the animals they eat, and name them (yes, I'm a vegetarian).

You have every right to be bothered by a scene, and to have your opinion about it. You have every right to tell others about it, because if people find they agree with you about most games, maybe they'll feel the same way. But I think its sad for a professional game blogger with a voice and early access to advocate for censorship before your audience even gets to see the game. I want to see Mercury Steam's vision for Dracula, not yours. No offense, but it is the truth.